The Making of the Indian Nation 65 out a little later that Laxman*s appointment as the President of the Congress Primary Committee of Mathili had 'considerable effect on Malkangiri. By 1941-42 Tentuligumma alone boasted of a paying membership of two hundred members* (p.194). It is also mentioned that being 'naikos\ leaders like Laxman and Lal Raja 'naturally* wielded influence (p.196). Although he refers to the messianic traits forming an integral component of the revolt, indications of it are sparse. There are references to the belief that Laxman Naiko would be 'the future king of Malkangiri' to the chanting of Ramdhun, and spread of temperance — but no reference to fears and expectations couched in religious terms. If the faith in the establishment of 'Laxman Raj, Gandhi Raj and Swaraj* are considered myths of deliverance (p.200) then perhaps we can extend the same logic to describe the whole process of nation-building as a millenarian attempt. But a very significant point that emerges from the discussion is this that while the national movement gained from the convergence of local and national interests, the 'social transformative* character of the movement remained incomplete. Bethi and Goti, the two principle forms of bonded labour, received only minimum attention in 1942. Set in Madras, David Arnold's essay on the Quit India movement describes it as an 'important internal crisis - of identity, method and purpose - as much as an episode in the continuing contest between the Congress and the Raj* (p.207). But there is a basic vagueness of approach in tackling the undercurrents of economic tension that neither dispels nor supports the notion of autonomy. For instance at one point he says 'in the main, industrial unrest continued on its own course independently of Quit India. The Congress was either unwilling or unable to profit from it'. And at the next instance, 'Industrial workers remained largely, but not entirely aloof. A fresh strike broke out at the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills in August and continued until 21 September. How far it owed its inspiration to Quit India or was a new phase in the recurrent disputes over bonuses and allowances is not clear.' (p.210). David Arnold confirms the limits of his essay himself when he says that an understanding of the movement in Madras might enable a broader understanding of the party and the country in 1942. And so in answer to the question of the relative moderation of Madras during the movement we are told about the persistent tradition of 'parliamentarianism* and commitment to a 'non-revolutionary transfer of power' (p.217). But is it justified to conclude that 'in Madras, there was no Satara because there was no equivalent non-Brahmin radicalism to issue forth from the Congress in 1942-43' (p.220), when it has been adequately shown that non-Brahmin radicalism in Satara had local roots and was not a baby of the Congress? His essay contributes more to an understanding of the tension between the stalwarts of the Congress and the Justice Party before and during the Quit India and not so much to the internal dynamics of the society at large.